System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 11/18/2025 12:38 PM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20100075 Multiple primaries/Histology--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are to be accessioned when a 1/27/10 bone marrow biopsy, FISH and cytogenetics reveals chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), BCR/ABL positive, t(9;22)(q34;q11) and a 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy reveals B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML)?

1/27/10 BM biopsy: CML BCR/ABL+ FISH positive for BCR/ABL and cytogenetics showing the t(9;22)q34q11.2 translocation. Treated with Imatinib. 4/15/10 BM biopsy: B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Blast phase of CML). Would the term "blast phase of CML" indicate the 4/15/10 bone marrow biopsy showed CML or would a new primary be abstracted with histology coded 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS]?

Applying rule M10, this is a new primary, but note 2 states transformations are defined in the Heme DB. The Abstractor Notes section indicates CML has three phases: chronic, accelerated, and the blastic phase or blast crisis. The accelerated phase can last weeks to months. In the chronic phase the involvement is usually limited to blood, bone marrow and spleen although the liver may be infiltrated. During the blastic phase, lymph nodes and tissue may be involved. The blastic phase is a disease progression from the chronic phase. The disease, however, remains the same histology, chronic myelogenous leukemia.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

This case represents a multiple primary per Rule M15 which states you are to use the Heme DB Multiple Primaries Calculator to determine the number of primaries for all cases that do not meet the criteria of M1-M14.

The histology for the first primary is coded to 9875/3 [chronic myelogenous leukemia, BCR-ABL1 positive].

The histology for the second primary is 9811/3 [B lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma, NOS] in the absence of further documentation that the B-ALL was also positive for the t(9;22) translocation.

The histology code 9806/3 [Mixed phenotype acute leukemia with t(9;22)(q34;q11.2); BCR-ABL1] cannot be used for the second primary because there is no documentation that the B-ALL diagnosed on 04/15/2010 also had the t(9;22) translocation and this histology cannot be used in patients ." Per the Definition section in the Heme DB, in order to use histology code 9806/3 "This leukemia meets the criteria for mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL) in which the blasts also have t(9;22) translocation of BCR-ABL1 rearrangement. Some patients with chronic myeloid leukemia may develop or even present with a mixed blast phase that would meet criteria for MPAL; however, this diagnosis should not be made in patients known to have had CML."

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2010
20100106 Reportability-Bladder: Is a case with a cytology diagnosis, "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma" reportable if the diagnosis on a subsequent bladder biopsy showed only "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential"? See Discussion.

On 11/23/09 the patient had urine cytology diagnosis "positive for malignancy, favor low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma." On 12/28/09, the bladder biopsy showed "urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential."

SINQ 20081086 only addresses the example of a positive FNA/biopsy followed by a negative resection. Would the previous decision hold for this case when a positive fine needle aspiration biopsy is followed by only a negative biopsy?

This case is not reportable. The pathology proved the cytology to be incorrect. The pathologic diagnosis is the "gold standard." When cytology and pathology disagree, use pathology.

2010
20100078 MP/H Rules/Histology--Lung: How is histology coded for a diagnosis of squamous carcinoma and large cell undifferentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma? For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, apply rule H7 and code the numerically higher ICD-O-3 code, 8070/3 [Squamous cell carcinoma]. See Chart 1, the histology tree in lung equivalent terms. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma is histology code 8013/3. The other histology is squamous carcinoma, 8070/3. 8070/3 is higher numerically than 8013/3. 2010
20100092 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Should the primary site for the follicular lymphoma diagnosis be coded to C779 [Lymph nodes, NOS] when a bone marrow biopsy reveals both acute myeloid leukemia and follicular lymphoma? See Discussion. Bone marrow biopsy reveals acute myeloid leukemia and follicular lymphoma. There were no other studies done, no chemo given, and the patient expired shortly after diagnosis. Should the follicular lymphoma be coded to a primary site C779 [Lymph nodes, NOS]?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Code the primary site to C421 [bone marrow]. Per Rule PH26, bone marrow is the primary site when lymphoma is present only in the bone marrow. All the available physical exams, scans, and other work-up must also be negative for lymph node, tissue, or organ involvement. When there is no additional workup beyond the bone marrow biopsy and that biopsy is positive, code the primary site to bone marrow in those situations as well.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2010
20100110

Reportability--Esophagus/Stomach: Are the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract? See Discussion.

SINQ 20000245 states that high grade or severe dysplasia in not synonymous with in situ disease. However, per page 109 in the 7th edition of AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, high grade dysplasia is the only term listed under Tis. A note on that page explains that "high-grade dysplasia includes all noninvasive neoplastic epithelia that was formerly called carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that is no longer used for columnar mucosae anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract."

There has been considerable pressure from registrars at larger reporting facilities to re-address this issue. The pathologists at these facilities state that they are correctly documenting the presence of in situ disease when they use the term high grade dysplasia for gastrointestinal tract tumors. In their opinion, it is not necessary to add the term in situ in parentheses following the use of the term high grade dysplasia to clarify the behavior of these lesions in their pathology reports. If the term "carcinoma in situ" is no longer being used by many pathologists for sites in the gastrointestinal tract, won't this lead to underreporting of in situ disease for these sites unless the reportability guidelines are changed?

For cancer reporting purposes, the terms "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not synonymous with in situ for tumors in the gastrointestinal tract. These cases are only reportable when the pathologist documents carcinoma in situ or intraepithelial neoplasia grade III, or when the registry includes in their policies and procedures the pathologist's statement that he/she uses HGD to mean the same as CIS.

Reportability laws are customarily based on ICD-O. Because "high grade dysplasia" and "severe dysplasia" are not designated as in situ in the ICD-O, there is no legal authority to report these cases in most states.

NAACCR is reviewing this issue. See #5 on page 11 of the December 1, 2013 NAACCR Implementation document, http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=u7d3sB71t5w%3d&tabid=126&mid=466

2010
20100104 Grade--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Is the phrase "aberrant T-cell expression" enough to code the grade field to T-cell when the final diagnosis on the pathology report is "AML with aberrant T-cell antigen expression"? Yes. Code grade to 5 [T-cell]. The T cell receptor, or TCR, is a molecule found on the surface of T lymphocytes (or T cells). 2010
20100089 Primary site--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How is primary site coded when lymphoma is initially found in both lymph nodes and bone marrow, the pathology report is unavailable, and the physician only states that both areas are involved? See Discussion. For many consultations and/or class 2 cases, the pathology report is not available to help determine the primary site. Should the primary site be automatically coded to C421 over C77_ when both are involved? The Abstractor Notes state the primary site can be either bone marrow or lymph nodes. The physician states only that both are involved.

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Because both the bone marrow and LN are involved, code the primary site to C779 [lymph nodes, NOS] per Rule PH22. You are to code specific nodes if a specific region is specified; however, if no region is specified, code to lymph node, NOS [C779]). When you are having problems coding primary site, go to Module 7 Primary Site Rules for Lymphomas Only. See Rule PH26. It states that you code the primary site to bone marrow when ONLY the bone marrow is involved.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2010
20100006

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney: In a patient with a history of renal cell carcinoma, would a new primary be accessioned per Rule M10 for a soft tissue mass in the renal fossa not stated to be a metastasis but that was referred to as recurrent renal cell carcinoma, clear cell per the excision pathology report? See Discussion.

This patient was diagnosed with clear cell carcinoma of the right kidney in 2003, treated with nephrectomy. The tumor was limited to the kidney. An FNA of the pancreas in 11/07 was consistent with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In 2009 the patient was diagnosed with a right renal fossa mass by CT. The mass was excised on 8/26/09 and showed, "recurrent renal cell ca, clear cell." The path specimen was labeled as, "soft tissue, rt renal fossa." The original 2003 slides were not reviewed and the renal fossa mass was not described as being metastatic.

If the renal fossa soft tissue mass is a new tumor, the MP/H rules for Other Sites directs you to code it as a new primary per rule M10 [Tumors diagnosed more than one (1) year apart are multiple primaries]. Would this be a new soft tissue tumor per rule M10? Or would this be a recurrence of the original kidney primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:

This is not a new primary. The patient has metastatic disease from the 2003 kidney primary. Clear cell carcinoma metastasized to the pancreas in 2007 and to the right renal fossa in 2009.

 2010
20100079 Reportability--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Does the fact that the Hematopoietic Database states the ICD-O-3 code 9970/1 [Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS] mean that the ICD-O-3 books should be updated to indicate that as of 2010 the code 9970/1 [Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS] is no longer applicable?

For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.

Lymphoproliferative disorder/disease, NOS [9970/1] is not a reportable neoplasm. There are also new codes that define lymphoproliferative disorder/disease more specifically. If you do a "smart search" and enter only the word "lymphoproliferative" into the Heme DB, you will get a listing of all of the reportable and non-reportable terms. That enables you to look at your record and compare the words in the Heme DB to those in the record you are reviewing.

SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx.

2010
20100095

MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: In a patient who was never disease free because of multiple recurrences of invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder originally diagnosed in 2004, is an invasive high grade urothelial carcinoma of the renal pelvis diagnosed in 2010 a new primary? See Discussion.

Patient has invasive TCC of the bladder diagnosed in 2004, and has never been disease free.

In 2/18/10 a left renal pelvis wash showed urothelial carcinoma, high grade.

On 4/7/10 a nephroureterectomy revealed high grade urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatous and squamous differentiation invading through pelvic wall and perihilar soft tissue.

Is this a new renal pelvis primary?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, the renal pelvis is a new primary per rule M7. M7 will be better explained in the revised MP/H rules, but the rationale is that no field effect was present for more than 3 years. Although the bladder CA continued to recur, there were no other organs involved until 2010. M7 is intended to make the renal pelvis a new primary because there was no field effect (no organs other than bladder involved) for more than 3 years.

 2010